23 October 2012 4:17 PM

Badgershambles - what a mess!

Last week I predicted that the government would be forced into an embarrassing u-turn over the proposed badger cull. I was right. Today the hapless Environment Secretary, Owen Patterson, announced that the two proposed trials in the West Country will not, after all, go ahead. The official line is that the badger cull will now take place next year. It will not. This is the end of the Great Badger Cull.

There can now be no serious person in the United Kingdom who believes a badger cull would be an effective way to tackle the cattle TB problem. Culling badgers is not a completely ludicrous idea - as I have said they carry the disease and indeed five years ago a trial cull was carried out to see if it woudl be effective. But the results showed that, er, culling is at best an ineffective waste of time and at worst makes things worse.

The question must now be, how did the government get itself into this mess? When you have just about every expert in the country briefing, on the record, against what is supposed to be an evidence-based policy, then something has gone very, very badly wrong. Suspicion must fall on the links between Whitehall and the NFU, which has backed the cull.

Fortunately, sense has prevailed, albeit at the last moment, before any actual badgers were killed or taxpayers' money thrown down the drain. Better late than never, but there must be some hard questions asked as to why Mr Patterson continues to back such a misguided policy. In my book this is rather worse than shouting at a policeman or sitting in First Class on the train.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Roger Welsh: British Wildlife Management is a pro shooting, hunting, fishing website, hand in glove with the Countryside Alliance. Hardly an objective view of the issue. A vet against the combined scientific panel who oversaw the trial ten year cull ... I know who I believe.

Its such an easy situation .....identify the dirty setts ....cull the infected badgers in those setts and collapse them so badgers can't return to them. Job done .
Then again you could just leave the farmers to it as they have been managing these issues for years and are generally better versed in managing the wildlife on their land than the government.

Not really a surprise that Paterson is still extolling the cull since the reason it was implemented was to assuage Tory vested interest and allies ie the NFU and landowners..not for scientific reasons.

Michael Hanlon wrote
18 September 2012 7:27 PM
ME is possibly a mental illness not an infection after all - but that does not mean that it is not real
Tin hats on. A story about myalgic encephalomyelitis has emerged and, save animal experimentation, I cannot think of another area of science of medicine that arouses such passion. Indeed ‘passion’ may not be the word – ‘hysteria’ may be a better term.
What is mysterious is the fact that although a belief that this disease is psychiatric in origin may be debateable and even controversial, it seems to arouse the same sort of passions that accompany vivisection, a far more (on the face of it) emotive subject.

you say Killing badgers is worse than shouting at a policeman or sitting in First Class on the train . I would say your own views cannot be any less exstream than those around animal experimentation arouseing the same sort of passions that accompany vivisection or those who have ME CFS ,you dont mind if a policeman dies as long as a badger lives
Maybe you should give policemen tin hats before handing over your gun.

Roger Welsh,
'The scientific case is as clear as it can be: this cull is not the answer to TB in cattle. The government is cherry-picking bits of data to support its case.' Professor Lord John Krebs, who led the 10 year trial of badger culling
'It is very clear to me that the government's policy does not make sense.' Professor Lord Robert May, former government chief scientist and president of the Royal Society
And you quote an article by a vet writing for British Wildlife Management, which is in the wildlife as sport category; Countryside Alliance et al, very much to do with 'managing' wildlife, ie killing. A different approach to nature than the scientific. I see they make a big thing about culling badgers too, and on hunting, and lots of other gripes about interference. I don't think a balanced view is what you're after is it? You're a Countryside Alliance shill.

On the subject of badgers though, there are a number of farmers who, whilst in the middle of TB hot spots, have been entirely free of it. They seem to accomplish this with a mixture of good husbandry such as warm dry housing and plenty of space [remember human TB was tackled by improving housing conditions] and they don't keep taking cattle to market as others do to see what price they might make, then returning them to the farm. Intermixing of cattle is probably much more responsible than infection from badgers.
These farmers who are TB free also leave out nutrient-vitamin licks for the badgers, which have ingredients that strengthen thir immune system, and they don't become infected, therefor can't pass it on. This hasn't even been investigated by Defra.
But why the resistance to vaccination? A vaccine exists, it could be given to cattle or badgers now, and the reason why not is that all the badgers would have to be trapped first to be sure, much like killing them then.

Roger Welsh,
'The scientific case is as clear as it can be: this cull is not the answer to TB in cattle. The government is cherry-picking bits of data to support its case.' Professor Lord John Krebs, who led the 10 year trial of badger culling
'It is very clear to me that the government's policy does not make sense.' Professor Lord Robert May, former government chief scientist and president of the Royal Society
And you quote an article by a vet writing for something called British Wildlife Management, which is in the wildlife as sport category; Countryside Alliance et al, very much to do with 'managing' wildlife, a different approach to nature than the scientific. I see they make a big thing about culling badgers too, and on hunting, and lots of other gripes about interference. I don't think a balanced view is what you're after is it?

On the subject of badgers though, there are a number of farmers who, whilst in the middle of TB hot spots, have been entirely free of it. They seem to accomplish this with a mixture of good husbandry such as warm dry housing and plenty of space [remember human TB was tackled by improving housing conditions] and they don't keep taking cattle to market as others do to see what price they might make, then returning them to the farm. Intermixing of cattle is probably much more responsible than infection from badgers.
These farmers who are TB free also leave out nutrient-vitamin licks for the badgers, which have ingredients that strengthen thir immune system, and they don't become infected, therefor can't pass it on. This hasn't even been investigated by Defra.
But why the resistance to vaccination? A vaccine exists, it could be given to cattle or badgers now, and the reason why not is that all the badgers would have to be trapped first to be sure, much like killing them then.

Mr Hanlon is wrong in his assertion that badge culling would not reduce the the Bovine TB problem.
t
He should read the report by Dr John Gallagher MRCVS in an article for the British Wildlife Management.

We must now urgently set up a panel to make scientific recommendations on the best way to tackle the disease. Reconvening the Independent Scientific Group would be an excellent start, with a mandate to produce a science led policy within 6 months. In the meantime assist those farmers who want to vaccinate their badgers, discuss cattle vaccination and testing with the EC, and tighten biosecurity and transport regulations.

Unfortunately Kendall of the NFU and Paterson were still sounding gung-ho pro slaughter on Channel 4 News. So there may need to be a continuation of the campaign for a sensible multifaceted science led policy rather than the slaughter of badgers.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.

MICHAEL HANLON

Michael is Britain’s sharpest and most well-read newspaper science journalist.

As well as writing science features and comment for the Daily Mail, he is the author of five popular science books including ‘Ten Questions Science Can’t Answer (Yet)’ and ‘Eternity – our Next Billion years’ (Palgrave Macmillan).

With his support of nuclear power and dismissal of alternative medicine, Michael has never been afraid to court controversy, and he has managed to enrage both climate change sceptics and believers.